charger.dad Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 i heard rumblings from down at state this last weekend that moving around the weight classes was being talked about for next year.....i know it was discussed at length this past year but i heard it was shelved and not going to happen.....anyone else know or hear about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Here are the proposed weight classes 106 113 120 126 132 138 145 152 160 170 182 195 220 285 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger.dad Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 Here are the proposed weight classes 106 113 120 126 132 138 145 152 160 170 182 195 220 285 so, is it being discussed again or is that just rumor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 It will be discussed and voted on at the NFHS meeting again this year. Many people have said the reason new weights weren't accepted last year is that everyone was split between the three different proposals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfcfanatic Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 In my perfect world..... 108 117 125 133 141 149 157 165 174 184 197 230 285 13 weights... no need for crazy tie breaker criteria any more... closer to the college weights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENoblewrestling Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I really think that is a good idea to get rid of all of the tie-breakers, but I think that a 15 weight class instead of 13 would be the way to go, more kids get varsity experiance that way. I have never thought about how adding/dropping a weight class would change the scoring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I really think that is a good idea to get rid of all of the tie-breakers, but I think that a 15 weight class instead of 13 would be the way to go, more kids get varsity experiance that way. I have never thought about how adding/dropping a weight class would change the scoring. So you want to water wrestling down more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchas Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 In my perfect world..... 108 117 125 133 141 149 157 165 174 184 197 230 285 13 weights... no need for crazy tie breaker criteria any more... closer to the college weights. Add all the weights you want but 108 is way to high. Just look at the # of state placers at 103 that are under weight or just at weight. We already have several guys taking a red shirt year just to be a lagit. 103. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1oldwrestler Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Here are the proposed weight classes 106 113 120 126 132 138 145 152 160 170 182 195 220 285 I was really kind of hoping that the success of the undersized guys at 103 this year at Conseco would stop the drive to raise 103. So much for hoping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger.dad Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 Add all the weights you want but 108 is way to high. Just look at the # of state placers at 103 that are under weight or just at weight. We already have several guys taking a red shirt year just to be a lagit. 103. very good point..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtv2112 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Add all the weights you want but 108 is way to high. Just look at the # of state placers at 103 that are under weight or just at weight. We already have several guys taking a red shirt year just to be a legit. 103. You have to balance that argument with the massive amounts of forfeits at that weight throughout the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntegratedCarp Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 So you want to water wrestling down more? :-* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENoblewrestling Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 So you want to water wrestling down more? A 15th weight class would- 1. Get rid of the stupid tie breakers. We won three matches on about the ninth criteria. You would only need one criteria most matches won. 2. Allow you to keep a low weight for the really small kids while at the same time allowing you to get more of your middle wieght/ heavy kids into the line-up, which is what the weight class changes are attempting to effect. 3. It would water down wrestling a bit, but it is not the same as classing the entire tournament. You and I both know that. Im not against having more oppurtunities for wrestlers. I am against simply changing what it means to be a state qualifier and then thinking that you accomplished something that you truelly didnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caleb Spires Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I would personally go... 105 113 120 125 131 137 142 150 157 165 175 190 215 285 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchas Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 You have to balance that argument with the massive amounts of forfeits at that weight throughout the season. Just because you have some forfeits doesn't mean that the 103 weight class is not needed. You take away wresting for the smaller guys and you will see wresting decline greatly. It is not about moving it from 103 to 106. It is about moving it from 98 to 106. What is next. 110, 115, 120? If your argument is you need to go to the average size of say a Junior. You are going to have to go to 125 or 130. Wresting will become just like every other sport. Where size is the most important factor in success. I don't know about the rest of you guys but I love to watch the 103 class. Action, Action, Action! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 A 15th weight class would- 1. Get rid of the stupid tie breakers. We won three matches on about the ninth criteria. You would only need one criteria most matches won. 2. Allow you to keep a low weight for the really small kids while at the same time allowing you to get more of your middle wieght/ heavy kids into the line-up, which is what the weight class changes are attempting to effect. 3. It would water down wrestling a bit, but it is not the same as classing the entire tournament. You and I both know that. Im not against having more oppurtunities for wrestlers. I am against simply changing what it means to be a state qualifier and then thinking that you accomplished something that you truelly didnt. 1. Win the match outright 2. We already do that 3. Increasing the number of state qualifiers by 7% will water wrestling down. Lets not do that because we all know we can't have our sport watered down any more than it is. You want to water down the team series, now you want to water down the individual series, quit with all the watering down of the sport. Lets go to 10 weight classes like college or even 5 would be best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin2win1 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 an odd amount of weight classes would not eliminate the tie breaker criteria complete.... ever hear of a double forfeit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin2win1 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 How about we keep the 14 weight classes, and then have an open division, where the teams put their best wrestler in it, doesn't matter about weight. Then we can find that one "true champion" come state time, that would make y2 happy ::sarcasm button:: tried the sarcasm button that some one suggested, didn't work.... argggg hahahahahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Peck Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Here are the proposed weight classes 106 113 120 126 132 138 145 152 160 170 182 195 220 285 I think Iowa has already voted to make this change. That is probably a fairly good indication of where we are headed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I think Iowa has already voted to make this change. That is probably a fairly good indication of where we are headed. They also have class wrestling, so they are clueless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tskin Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Yea I would imagine we will move to these weights next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gstemv81 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 The new proposed weights appear to add a couple pounds to every class. Looking more closely, 135/140 would be consolidated into 138, while the current 189 would be split into 182/195. We'd be losing a middle weight to gain an upper weight - I'm not sure that's good. I do like that the current gap between 171 and 189 would be eliminated. Y2's "one weight class true champion" jive is known in philosophy as a STRAWMAN argument. You set up a strawman and knock it down. Class wrestling in Iowa has resulted in chicks qualifying for state with double digit losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin2win1 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Y2's "one weight class true champion" jive is known in philosophy as a STRAWMAN argument. You set up a strawman and knock it down. yes i know... see that sarcasm button did not work. Next thing you know, he will be proposing that then champion from the previous year should wrestle the champion from the current year to determine the true state champ. And that true state champ keeps wrestling the champion from then on. Heck maybe one day the 2012 champ could wrestle the 2030 champ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchas Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I think we should add another weight between 215 and 285. That way we can see more stalling calls! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OVGrad07 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I think they should put in 98lb weight class. some freshman are a lot smaller than 103., like micic this year. Heck I only wieghed 93lbs my freshman year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts